Politics’ love affair with the shadows is a longstanding tradition. In the past, these behind-the-scene operatives have included bankers, business families, and even religious luminaries. They offer stewardship to the system in times of uncertainty, unwilling to rely on its ability to self-correct. The shadows pride themselves in functioning like an “invisible hand”, even if they are anything but.

It seems a new actor has been added to the list of shadows: corporate agriculturists (note: readers must not confuse them with a different actor: department of agriculture that made name for its benevolence last year). Like others, corporate agriculturalist is also not fond of recognition, but is often dragged in limelight by detractors.

So, it was only apt for policymakers in positions of power to step up and present gratitude to their benefactor publicly. To this end, a press conference was held in the federal capital yesterday by Ministry of National Food Security & Research. While the subject could just as well have been the “life and times of the benefactor”, the organizers decided to take a subtle approach, ostensibly discussing the “National Agriculture Emergency” program. This, by the way, also turned out to be a brainchild of the benefactor.

The federal minister revealed how this actor “prefers to contribute from behind-the-scenes” but was present at the media talk only upon his insistence. “No one in Pakistan”, vouched the esteemed minister, “understands agriculture sector better than the [actor]”. Another presenter swore that “actions by the benefactor made sure that wheat and cane farmers received full support price for the first-time in over a decade”.

Details of the “National Agriculture Emergency” program were presented, except they did not differ much in substance as what had already been outlined in the Economic Survey’s Agriculture section. Barring one that the projected outlay had already shot up by Rs20 billion based on PC-1 initiated by line ministries.

Sadly, the obsession of press with the benefactor’s commercial interests and disbarment (a petty legal lacuna) trivialized what could have been an otherwise productive interaction. Cynics might even argue that his business is a red herring, distracting press from asking questions that really matter.

What could those questions be? That why does the policy document contain no mention of the largest kharif crop cotton, mainstay of textile exports? The presser noted that poor returns are responsible for farmer’s subdued interest in cotton and preference for cane. Yet, if the incumbent government has been able to ensure full prices for wheat and cane, why could it not do the same for cotton?

Steps to establish and upgrade agriculture markets came under discussion, as did role of arthi. Increasing number of arthis to encourage competition seems like a worthwhile idea. Yet, no one wondered how effective this may be until the practice of “sirf arthi ka beta arthi” continues unhinged.

Similarly, no eyebrows were raised when five-year yield targets for wheat, rice and cane were presented. That the target quoted for paddy was in fact its current level. Nor was it asked why the most ambitious target of 54 percent growth was set for cane, already produced in abundance, and whether there was any need to curtail its unabated plantation.

The otherwise shy operator however did go on offensive once. Noting that the Sindh government had displayed complete disinterest in federal government’s plan to uplift the sector. That comment was not based in ignorance of legal realities. He argued that “Post 18th amendment, it is insisted that agriculture is a provincial subject. But people must accept that the leadership will always come from the federal level”. So much for devolution.

The question for the minister-in-charge is thus following: the benefactor may well be the best authority on agriculture in the country. But the minister also has a long list of policy and research departments such as PARC, Dept. of Plant Protection, Agriculture Policy Institute, Central Cotton Committee, and Livestock Wing, to name just a few.

If the ministry’s five-year plan is truly the brainchild of the benefactor alone, the minister may be wise in downsizing his workforce. But that may come in the way of providing “federal leadership”.